Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

U.S.-made HIMARS missile systems in Romania aimed against Russian forces in Transnistria

By Paul Antonopoulos | March 5, 2021

The first batch of U.S.-made HIMARS multi-launch missile systems arrived in the Romanian Black Sea port of Constanța and is now a part of the national army. The first to receive the new missile system is the 81st Tactical Operational Missile Battalion, deployed in Focșani, about 70 kilometers from the border with Moldova.

HIMARS artillery missile systems are designed to attack areas with a concentration of artillery systems, air defenses, transport nodes and other major targets that are within a 300-kilometer range. Considering Romania borders Ukraine, Moldova, Bulgaria, Hungary and Serbia, the country has no enemies within the scope of HIMARS, bringing to question why it purchased such systems. It is difficult to explain why such a powerful weapon is deployed in eastern Romania, 220 kilometers from the Moldovan city of Tiraspol and 270 kilometers from the ammunition depot in Cobasna in the separatist region of Transnistria – which is internationally recognized as a part of Moldova.

It must be noted that the U.S. approved the sale of 20 HIMARS launchers, worth $655 million, to Poland. Romania received 54 launchers, more than double the amount of Poland, showing that the U.S. is prioritizing the Black Sea as a point of pressure against Russia – more so than the Baltics. Whereas the German Navy are present in the Baltics and the British can reach the area with relative ease, the Black Sea is effectively a “Russian lake,” particularly after Russia’s 2014 reunification with Crimea. NATO member states Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania do not have the capabilities to challenge the Russian Navy in the Black Sea, hence why Washington is also cooperating with Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia.

But the question still remains – why would Bucharest need 54 HIMARS launchers, more than the American artillery brigade has, and more than 10% of all such systems in the Pentagon’s arsenal?

It is excessive fire power for an army that has only 70,000, personnel and does not have the means to redeploy heavy weapons at a great distance. According to Firepower, Romania is ranked only 41st globally for their military power.

Hypothetically, in a war situation, the 41st U.S. Artillery Brigade could borrow the Romanian HIMARS systems and transport them to Georgia or Ukraine. At the end of 2020, U.S. ground forces conducted exercises to prepare for a “hi-tech war” in Romania. In a few hours they managed to transport by air two HIMARS systems from Germany to the Kogâlniceanu Air Base and launch several rockets towards the Black Sea – there is little doubt that the imagined target was Russian forces when we consider that it is only 400 kilometers between the Romanian coast and Russia. Although this is 100 kilometers less than the range of the HIMARS system, according to Forbes, the exercises were “a message for Moscow” and a “rocket surprise” for Russian forces in Crimea.

The political-military situation in the region is becoming increasingly tense, with Moldova coming within range of American weapons and soldiers based in Romania. According to the Constitution, the Republic of Moldova is a neutral state, but decisionmakers in the Moldovan capital of Chisinau and their Romanian counterparts in Bucharest concluded a military cooperation agreement in 2013, which de facto subordinates Moldovan troops to the Romanian General Staff and allows Romanian gendarmes to maintain “public order” in the country. With Romania effectively controlling Moldova’s security and President Maia Sandu pivoting her country towards NATO and the European Union, Chisinau could be a willing participant in the West’s sustained campaign to pressure Moscow.

Analysts at the Pentagon-affiliated RAND Corporation are examining how U.S. troops could enter Moldova to participate in military exercises and not leave, using the pretext of the so-called Russian threat. American maneuvers and armament in Eastern Europe not only threatens Russia, but serves to ensure that Romania and Baltic States stay loyal to Washington and against Moscow.

If the U.S. is successful in stationing troops in Moldova, they would effectively have new access to the Black Sea via the Port of Giurgiulești on the Danube River. In addition, U.S. troops would be within touching distance of the 1,500-strong Operational Group of Russian Forces in Transnistria, whose responsibilities include maintaining peace and guarding several tons of military equipment and ammunition in Cobasna.

Although the HIMARS system cannot reach Russia from Romania, it is likely that these missiles are aimed against Russian forces maintaining peace in Transnistria. 54 HIMARS in Romania’s arsenal demonstrates an escalation by Bucharest as it is clear that the excessive number of units is not for defensive purposes, especially considering the country’s cordial relations with its neighbors.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

March 5, 2021 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Russian Foreign Ministry: Twitter no longer independent social media, but a tool of ‘digital diktat’ under control of West

By Jonny Tickle | RT | February 26, 2021

Twitter is rapidly changing from an independent platform into a tool of Western countries to impose a dictatorship over the internet. That’s according to the Russian Foreign Ministry, following a recent ban of Russian accounts.

Speaking on Friday, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova blasted the US tech giant for removing 100 accounts allegedly linked to the Kremlin. On Tuesday, the site’s owners announced that 69 were deleted for “undermining faith in the NATO alliance,” with a further 31 banned for “targeting the United States and European Union.”

“We once again can’t help but notice that Twitter is rapidly degenerating from an independent discussion platform into a tool of global digital diktat in the hands of the Western establishment,” she told journalists, noting that accounts from NATO members haven’t been victims of similar operations.

“Assumptions and unproven insinuations were once again presented as justifications,” she continued. “The reasoning in Twitter’s own report is absurd: the accounts allegedly broadcast messages related to the Russian government, undermined trust in NATO, and influenced the United States and the EU.”

In her opinion, the blocks were “arbitrary” and “illegal,” based on “opaque criteria.”

Following the ban, Russian regulator Roskomnadzor wrote to Twitter to demand a list of the blocked accounts and justifications for why Twitter blocked them.

On the same day, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov suggested the creation of national and international rules to regulate social networks to avoid censorship.

“We are increasingly concerned about the non-transparent policies of social media platforms, which, at their discretion, prohibit or censor user content, openly manipulating public opinion,” he said.

February 26, 2021 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

‘Undermining faith in NATO’ is now grounds for Twitter ban, because certain kinds of politics have become a religion

By Nebojsa Malic | RT | February 25, 2021

Heresy against NATO has apparently joined the ever-expanding list of sins that will get one erased from Twitter, as Big Tech mounts a crusade against infidels at home and abroad on behalf of values of Our Democracy.

Twitter announced bans on 373 accounts it connected to “state-linked information operations” on Tuesday. Some of them, the company said, “amplified narratives that were aligned with the Russian government” or “focused on undermining faith in the NATO alliance and its stability.”

Twitter is a US-based company, and the First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees freedom of speech as well as religion. Under that set of rules, anyone’s faith in NATO – or lack thereof – would be none of Twitter’s business.

Then again, that set of rules isn’t exactly in effect anymore. Twitter has long abandoned its “free speech wing of the free speech party” shtick to become a cudgel for Our Democracy to beat its critics with. Or did you miss the part where they censored a sitting president of the United States over how he “might be perceived and interpreted” and meddled in the election by blocking a newspaper over a true story they falsely claimed was based on hacked materials?

Assuming for the sake of argument that these things were all part of “fortifying” the election – as TIME magazine put it – and defending Our Democracy from the evils of the constitutional republic, that might explain the repudiation of free speech and free press.

Which leaves religion, and still doesn’t answer why Twitter is now embarking on a jihad to protect NATO from heretics.

Last I checked, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was not a god, but a military alliance. It hardly needs anyone’s “faith” – or Big Tech protection thereof. Not only is it armed to the teeth but commands its own legions of “disinformation” hunters and propaganda shops. Why, one of Twitter’s executives is literally an officer in a psychological warfare outfit of the UK military – a member of NATO, if anyone hasn’t been paying attention.

Big Tech is also working hand in glove with an entire cottage industry of “disinformation researchers” such as Ben Nimmo – an alum of the Atlantic Council, a think-tank serving as a NATO cut-out – and Renee DiResta of the Stanford Internet Observatory.

DiResta ought to be notorious because her old firm, New Knowledge, was exposed for literally running a bunch of fake accounts posing as ‘Russian bots’ during a 2017 special US Senate election in Alabama. Because that helped a Democrat, NK was allowed to quietly rebrand and DiResta failed upward to land at Stanford. These are not the “Russians” you are looking for, move along, that sort of thing.

So it’s ironic that DiResta’s new outfit has provided more information about Twitter’s newest crusade, as well as where it might be headed. Based on information they were provided by Twitter, some of the accounts in one of the “Russian networks,” the SIO says, “appear to have been linked to the operations primarily via technical indicators rather than amplification or conversation between them.”

Notice the weasel phrasing such as “appear to be linked,” or “show signs of being affiliated” in Twitter’s original blog. It’s simply amazing how the same people who demand irrefutable evidence of, say, US election irregularities suddenly need no evidence whatsoever for their own assertions.

SIO also offers a glimpse into the future of this crusade, noting that while Twitter, Facebook and Medium “chip away” at accounts “pushing Russia-aligned narratives about Syria and NATO,” such activity persists on LiveJournal and Telegram.

No doubt these two platforms – one bought by a Russian company back in 2007, the other founded by a Russian national but currently operating out of Dubai – will find themselves in the crosshairs soon enough.

“Censorship is an intoxicating power that endlessly expands until it’s smashed,” as independent journalist Glenn Greenwald pointed out.

Especially since enforcing “faith” means this isn’t about differences of opinion anymore. Forget about things such as free speech, or due process, or debate that’s the cornerstone of an actual democracy. Politics of a certain kind is now religion.

In a move that should surprise no one, this religious war against heretics who dare doubt NATO and other “Russian” wrongthink was hailed by such luminaries of the US establishment as former ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul.

Lest you think he’s an outlier, the US embassy in Kiev applauded the Ukrainian government’s order to close down three opposition TV stations earlier this month. Democrat lawmakers are currently pushing for similar censorship at home.

Just last week, the newly installed US President Joe Biden told European allies that “the transatlantic alliance is back,” pledging his renewed support for NATO. Biden has also said he would govern based on “values.” The thing to understand is that those values aren’t necessarily what the Constitution of the American Republic, now effectively replaced by what has been dubbed Our Democracy, says they are.

Nebojsa Malic is a Serbian-American journalist, blogger and translator, who wrote a regular column for Antiwar.com from 2000 to 2015, and is now senior writer at RT. Follow him on Telegram @TheNebulator

February 25, 2021 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

As deadline nears for Trump-negotiated Afghanistan withdrawal, press prepares public to accept its breach

RT | February 21, 2021

The Biden administration is expected to break the Trump-negotiated deal with the Taliban and keep NATO troops in Afghanistan, according to media reports, and this is supposedly the right thing to do.

The agreement signed in Doha in late February 2020 sets May 1 as the deadline for a full withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan. The Pentagon currently has 2,500 service personnel deployed in the country, with NATO allies fielding some 7,000 more. Under the agreement, the Taliban pledged to make sure the territory under its control is not used by international terrorist groups to launch attacks on the US and to negotiate a peace deal with the US-propped government in Kabul.

While the Taliban did deliver on the promise it gave a year ago not to attack foreign troops, any hope of a reduction in violence in Afghanistan has faltered in the year since. The Biden administration has therefore ordered a review of the agreement, and “the overwhelming consensus among Afghan leaders, foreign diplomats and Western army officers” is that “the US will abandon the deadline,” according to the Sunday Times.

The prediction in the British newspaper comes from veteran war correspondent Anthony Loyd and follows a slew of other news reports outlining Biden’s Afghanistan conundrum and opinion pieces that rationalize breaking the deal.

The Democratic president has inherited a “mess” from Trump and has no good options, according to CNN, which said NATO allies are “growing increasingly concerned” about the situation. If he does withdraw, he would share some of the blame “if there is a collapse of the elected Afghan government,” the New York Times said. And a Taliban takeover would be disastrous for human rights, especially for the rights of women, Deutsche Welle warned.

Keeping Trump’s word and leaving now “would carry a reputational risk for the United States,” because it would “embolden jihadists and perhaps rejuvenate their movement, which has been in retreat,” columnist David Ignatius said. “And there would be an unmeasurable cost to American credibility.” So, of course Biden should listen to his head, not his heart, and keep “a small but sustainable force in Afghanistan,” which would cost relatively little and give the benefit of “checking terrorists, supporting NATO allies, and giving the Kabul government a fighting chance.”

The nudging press stops short of calling the Doha agreement “the worst deal ever made” the way Trump did with the Obama-era nuclear deal with Iran, but they might just as well have done so. The accord with Tehran was scrapped by Trump, but Biden is reluctant to simply deliver on the commitments made by Obama, even if it was one of the crowning achievements of his former boss’ diplomacy. With the Doha deal, history may repeat itself.

But if Biden follows the advice and reneges on the terms agreed to by his predecessor, how will it be read by the Taliban? Or Tehran, or Pyongyang, or Beijing, or Moscow? Probably as the latest proof that a deal with Washington is not worth the paper it’s written on.

The pattern of the US back-pedaling on its promises once there’s a change of leadership in the White House existed long before Trump. This was the case with assurances made to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand into Eastern Europe after the reunification of Germany, for example.

The same thing happened with the 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea. It was meant to prevent Pyongyang from going nuclear, and thus offered it some concessions, such as building proliferation-proof nuclear power plants. But the George W Bush administration eagerly scrapped it, courtesy of one John Bolton.

Even if given to an ally, Washington’s word is not necessarily solid. Pakistan, for instance, was famously denied the right to purchase F-16 fighter jets after the Soviet withdrawal from neighboring Afghanistan in 1989 made Islamabad a less crucial partner for the US.

Proponents of US global dominance, such as Robert Kagan, say the US is indispensable as a custodian of liberal world order and lament the fact that many Americans are not willing to embrace this role. That they “refer to the relatively low-cost military involvements in Afghanistan and Iraq as ‘forever wars’ is just the latest example of their intolerance for the messy and unending business of preserving a general peace and acting to forestall threats,” the neoconservative commentator and spouse of Victoria Nuland, the Biden-nominated under-secretary of state for political affairs, said in a recent opinion piece.

The ‘low cost’ in Afghanistan was 3,500 dead coalition troops and over $2 trillion dollars in direct and indirect spending. So, what does the US have to show for it? The longest-lasting war in its history that nevertheless failed to produce a self-sustaining government in Kabul. Withdrawal may be perceived as the US losing the war to the Taliban, but what a victory is supposed to look like remains a mystery.

February 21, 2021 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

US Marines “Stay Put” In Norway, Russia Responds With Bomber ‘Warning’ Flights In Arctic

By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | February 21, 2021

In a hugely significant move that will put Russia-Europe relations further on edge amid an ongoing build-up of NATO forces along sensitive border regions, the large contingent of Marines that arrived in Norway last month are now expected to stay for an indefinite period.

“About 1,000 Marines who arrived in Norway last month — only to have their military exercises canceled due to the pandemic — will remain in the country for arctic training,” Military.com reports based on Marine Corps statements.

They plan to stay and engage in “valuable arctic and mountain warfare training” through at least the springtime. The deployed units are mostly from the 3rd Battalion, 6th Marines but will now essentially “stay put”.

Marines have been training on a rotational basis in Norway for years, but the reality is their stays and rotations have been increasingly extended over the past years. Moscow has meanwhile condemned a ‘Cold War’ style build-up near the Arctic Circle, where it also frequently conducts military exercises.

The AFP wrote that Russia is “fuming”, citing a Russian ambassador to say:

“Nobody in the Arctic is preparing for an armed conflict. However, there are signs of mounting tension and military escalation,”  Russia’s ambassador to the Arctic Council, Nikolai Korchunov, said.

The current militarization in the region “could turn us back decades to the days of the Cold War,” he told Russia’s RIA news agency in early February.

As we described earlier this month, the US Air Force for the first time ever sent multiple B-1 Lancer bombers along with 200 airmen to Norway, which came amid greater NATO calls to “confront Russia”.

And now just days ago, Forbes detailed that in response “the Russian air force is mobilizing its own warplanes. Fighters to intercept the B-1. And bombers to strike back.”

Here’s more on Russia’s response:

After the U.S. Air Force announced the B-1 deployment, the Russian air force wasted no time sortieing its own bombers. Two of the service’s Tu-160 heavy bombers flew an epic, 12-hour sweep of Northern Europe, the Kremlin announced on Feb. 9.

The 6,000-mile round-trip took the swing-wing Tu-160s from their base at Engels in western Russia north to the Arctic Ocean then west to Svalbard, south into the Norwegian Sea, east along the Norwegian coast and finally south back to Engels.

A pair of MiG-31 interceptors flying from Rogachevo air base in northern Russian briefly escorted the bombers as they roared across the Kara Sea toward the Arctic.

And not helping this Cold War style throwback, President Biden on Friday warned a global audience of Russian “bullying” and “autocracy”.

“The trans-Atlantic alliance is back,” he said before the Munich Security Conference in words intended to restore trust from European allies in NATO.

February 21, 2021 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

No decision on any NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan: Stoltenberg

Press TV – February 18, 2021

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg says defense ministers from the Western military alliance made no decision at a recent meeting in Brussels on whether or when to pull out of war-torn Afghanistan.

“At this stage, we have made no final decision on the future of our presence,” Stoltenberg said after a video conference with allied defense ministers on Thursday.

The defense ministers met to discuss the possibility of staying in Afghanistan beyond the May withdrawal deadline agreed between the Taliban militant group and the United States under the administration of former US President Donald Trump.

Key on the agenda at the two-day virtual conference in Brussels was the future of the US-led forces in the war-torn country.

The NATO chief said US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin promised to consult with partners on the way forward.

“As the May 1 deadline is approaching, NATO allies will continue to closely consult and coordinate in the coming weeks. We are faced with many dilemmas, and there are no easy options,” Stoltenberg said.

“If we stay beyond the first of May, we risk more violence, more attacks against our own troops … But if we leave, then we will also risk that the gains that we have made are lost.”

The administration of President Joe Biden is reviewing whether to stick to the looming deadline to withdraw or risk a bloody backlash from the Taliban.

Other NATO members have signaled a desire within the alliance to stay in Afghanistan beyond the deadline. They are willing to remain in Afghanistan if Washington does so.

German Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer said on Wednesday that the Taliban must do more to meet the terms of a 2020 agreement with Washington on the withdrawal of US.forces to allow a pullout of the foreign troops.

“We can already say that we are not yet in a position to talk about the withdrawal of international forces from Afghanistan,” the German minister said as she arrived for the meeting.

“This also means a changed security situation, an increased threat for the international forces, also for our own forces. We have to prepare for this, and we will certainly discuss this.”

Nearly two decades after the US-led invasion, Trump struck a deal with the Taliban in the Qatari capital of Doha early last year.

The former White House tenant reached the accord in February 2020, under which the US and its NATO allies are expected to withdraw all troops in 14 months in exchange for the Taliban to halt attacks on foreign forces.

President Biden, however, has said his administration would not commit to a full withdrawal by May.

The United Nations says more than 100,000 civilians have been killed or injured over the past decade across Afghanistan.

February 19, 2021 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Atlantic Council urges Biden to enforce regime change in Belarus

By Paul Antonopoulos | February 18, 2021

A recent online meeting hosted by the Atlantic Council think tank discussed ways to force regime change in Belarus. The think tank detailed a plan with the aim of removing Aleksander Lukashenko, the current president of Belarus, from power by utilizing sanctions and other methods of pressure.

The Washington-based Atlantic Council is affiliated with NATO and receives funding from international billionaires like Adrienne Arsht, global companies like Goldman Sachs, Facebook and Google, as well as the Rockefeller Foundation and the JPMorgan Chase Foundation. These are only a few examples of their extensive funding. Some of the most powerful and influential figures in the world participate in the operations of the think tank, as well as a representative of Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, Belarus’ main opposition figure.

Objectives of the virtual meeting, entitled “Biden and Belarus: A strategy for the new administration,” includes organizing Washington’s control over the Belarussian opposition movement. In addition, they suggest a new position for a senior organizer to administer and maintain sanctions against Minsk, and appoint a senior official to administer assistance to the opposition. Their agenda also emphasized recognizing Tikhanovskaya’s position as the true leader of Belarus and delegitimizing Lukashenko by relocating the newly appointed U.S. ambassador to the Belarussian capital of Minsk, Julie Fisher, to the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius.

The Atlantic Council also suggested that U.S. Congressional funding for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty must be doubled from its current $117.4 million. The think tank also called for the U.S. to offer more advice to Belarussian opposition leaders. John Herbst, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, suggested in the virtual meeting that Belarussian opposition leaders should reduce public expressions about their aspirations for Minsk to be involved in Western security councils like NATO and economic structures like the European Union so that they do not provoke any response from Moscow.

Economist Anders Åslund, who is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center, also suggested that sanctions should be applied to companies in Russia and not Belarus. He argued that if sanctions hit Belarus, Minsk would be more dependent on Moscow. He also advised the Biden administration to sanction hundreds of Belarussian officials, saying that the aim of the sanctions is to put enough pressure on Belarus so that Lukashenko has no choice but to relinquish power. Åslund emphasized that this is really a group of regime change sanctions. In addition, the think tank suggested that the U.S. should increase its funding of the Belarussian opposition from $60 million to $200 million, saying that this amount came from Belarussian activists themselves.

As Åslund himself says, these measures exist entirely to force regime change against a sovereign nation. The mission of the Atlantic Council is to encourage and embolden the U.S. to control the Belarussian opposition movement with the aim of overthrowing Lukashenko. At the same time, the think tank claims that it respects Belarus’ sovereignty. However, it is evident that the think tank does not respect the sovereignty or self-determination of the Belarussian people and simply wants the Biden administration to install a lackey into power to continue Washington’s campaign of pressure against Russia.

If the Biden administration adopts the recommendations made by the Atlantic Council, this would not only cause significant tensions and further divisions in Belarus, but would also increase tensions between Washington and Moscow, which are already extremely strained.

The Atlantic Council promotes Western hegemony and a U.S.-led unipolar world order. The think tank is ranked seventh in the category of “2020 Top Think Tanks in the United States,” and tenth globally. Along with funding from the world’s richest people and most powerful corporations, the Atlantic Council wields great influence in not only NATO, but also various U.S. power structures like the White House and the Pentagon. For this reason, there is every chance that at some point during Biden’s presidential mandate that he will engage in a significant campaign of pressure against Belarus with the ultimate aim of further isolating Russia in Eastern Europe.

As the Atlantic Council attempts to maintain a U.S.-led unipolar order, Russia is one of its main targets because the Eurasian country inhibits American dominance over large areas of the Caucasus, Central Asia and Eastern Europe. Because Belarus is the sole friendly state in Eastern Europe towards Russia, Lukashenko’s removal from power will open the path for Russia to be completely isolated in the region. Biden also champions a U.S.-led unipolar order, and because of this there is every chance that at some point in the future he will enact the Atlantic Council’s program against Belarus to target Russia.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

February 18, 2021 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , | Leave a comment

NATO’s Road To Perdition With Ukraine

Strategic Culture Foundation | February 12, 2021

Despite repeated and long-standing warnings by Russia, the US-led NATO military alliance has indicated it is moving ever closer to accepting Ukraine as a new member. This is an incredibly incendiary step towards war that could escalate into a nuclear conflagration. And, risibly, this reckless initiative is being driven by an alliance which proclaims to be about upholding peace and security.

This week NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg hosted Ukrainian prime minister Denys Shymhal at the organization’s headquarters in Brussels. At a joint press conference, both men were upbeat about Ukraine joining NATO. Stoltenberg admitted that the former Soviet Republic has been eyed for membership of the alliance since 2008, a timescale which puts more recent conflict over the past nearly seven years in perspective. He also confirmed that NATO forces have been building up their presence in the Black Sea in coordination with Ukrainian counterparts. In recent weeks, three US warships have been training with Ukrainian naval vessels in order to counter what Stoltenberg says is “Russian aggression”.

Officially, Ukraine is designated as an “Enhanced Opportunities Partner” by NATO. Which makes one wonder, ironically, what kind of “opportunities” are being contemplated?

For all intents and purposes, Ukraine is already virtually a member of NATO. It has participated in overseas joint military operations and, as noted, it receives military aid, training and logistical support.

But if Ukraine were to be formally admitted to the NATO alliance then that opens up a legalized and inevitable path to war. Under the organization’s rules, any individual member nation is entitled to invoke a general defense clause which obliges other NATO members to support militarily. Since the governing authorities in Kiev continually claim that Russia is an aggressor – a view shared by NATO – then the potential for a generalized war with Russia is a wide open danger if Ukraine were to officially join the alliance.

Undoubtedly, NATO leaders are aware of this potential catastrophe and are also well aware of Russia’s deep concerns. That would explain their cautious delay in admitting Ukraine to the alliance. Germany and France in particular are understood to be against adding the country to NATO’s membership out of fear that it would provoke Russia.

It is interesting to speculate why Stoltenberg – a former Norwegian premier and nominal civilian head of NATO – this week appeared to give new impetus to Ukraine’s ambitions. Could it be related to the change of administration in the United States? Senior members of the Biden administration have publicly stated during Senate hearings a willingness to increase military support for the Kiev government in its conflict with pro-Russian separatists in Eastern Ukraine. American and European envoys at the UN Security Council this week reiterated strident accusations against Russia claiming that Moscow was responsible for prolonging the conflict in Ukraine. Russia’s envoy Vassily Nebenzia countered that it was the Kiev regime and its Western allies who have not implemented the previously agreed Minsk peace accord signed in 2015.

But surely even the most diehard NATO jingoists must realize that admitting Ukraine to the ranks would a be dangerous bridge too far. The same too for Georgia, another former Soviet Republic, which is also in the queue for joining the military alliance. Both countries are already in political conflict with Russia because of NATO expansionism, not as they or NATO would have it, because of “Russian aggression”. NATO pushed Georgia into a brief war with Russia in 2008 over the disputed territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Then in 2014, a NATO-backed coup d’état in Kiev against an elected president led to the ongoing low-intensity war in Eastern Ukraine. That coup also led to Crimea voting in a referendum to secede and join the Russian Federation which the West continually refers to disparagingly as “annexation”.

Professional, well-paid shills like Jens Stoltenberg like to spin the deluded yarn that NATO expansion is a “success” for democracy and the rule of law. Since the end of the Cold War in 1991 following the demise of the Soviet Union, NATO did not pack up and dissolve. In the ensuing 30 years it has doubled its membership from 16 to the present 30 constituent nations. This was in spite of earlier vows by American leaders that they would not permit NATO enlargement beyond the old frontiers of the Cold War and Warsaw Pact. The most recent additions include Montenegro and North Macedonia. Bosnia and Herzegovina are being considered under Membership Action Plans, and Ukraine and Georgia presumably after that.

NATO’s relentless expansion towards Russia’s borders, including the stationing of missile systems, in conjunction with baseless provocative, rhetoric accusing Moscow of aggression are patently posing an existential threat to Russian security. Yet NATO apologists talk blithely and in Orwellian fashion about promoting security, defense and rule of law.

Lest we forget, Russia came close to annihilation – within living memory – from military aggression by Nazi Germany and its eastern European satellites when up to 27 million Soviet people were killed in the Second World War (1939-45).

NATO’s own purported rules forbid the organization from admitting countries which are involved in border disputes or internal conflicts. That clearly should forbid Ukraine and Georgia. Yet the US-led NATO is turning a blind eye to its own rules, distorting its interventions in these countries as actions of defense against “Russian aggression”.

It would be ludicrous if it were not so gravely serious. NATO “justifies” the expansion to Ukraine and Georgia “because” Russia has forces in the Black Sea and the Barents Sea. Those regions are integral to Russia’s sovereign territory. This is while the United States from a distance of over 6,000 kilometers away stations B-1 strategic bombers for the first time in the Barents and sends increasing numbers of warships to the Black Sea in violation of maritime treaties. What next? Russia is accused of occupying Moscow?

The precedents and historical pattern show that the American imperial catspaw known officially as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is incapable of intelligent reasoning and dialogue. It is a machine geared for confrontation. Russia may therefore have to consider using another form of language in conveying its wholly legitimate security concerns.

For the present trajectory is a road to perdition.

February 13, 2021 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

How Macrocosmic Western Propaganda Launders Geopolitical Crimes

By Ronald Thomas West | February 10, 2021

This essay goes to the matter of Kosovo; where the Western states (NATO & the EU) have determined Serbia is not fit to govern a minority (of ethnic Albanians) on their own (Serbian) territory but the now purported (by the West) independent Kosovo is fit to govern a minority (of ethnic Serbs.)

The EU position seems to embrace an attitude of ‘never mind the inconvenient fact’ that recent Kosovo ‘leaders’ are being arrested and delivered to international tribunal for crimes against ethnic Serbs (includes organ harvesting), also not to mention what amounts to mere ‘lip service’ (no concrete action or enforcement) concerning the repatriation of 250,000 Serbs driven from Kosovo in an ethnic Albanian engineered cleansing pogrom following the NATO bombing of Serbia.

Insofar as an EU repatriation precedent, Croatia’s ethnic cleansing of Srpska Krajina shows the dishonesty of the EU position; there is no realistic expectation (and never was) by the European Union that the 200,000 Serbs expelled from this (formerly) Serb majority region would be allowed to return to Croatia and their homes. Meanwhile Croatia had been admitted to the European Union.

So, in the context of Serbs are not trustworthy to govern an ethnic minority of Albanians but Albanians are trustworthy to govern a minority of Serbs, the EU de facto embraces (actual outcomes, not political postures) just the sort of ethnic cleansing the NATO bombing was supposed to stop?

NATO ‘just allowed’ another massive pogrom to happen when they’d gained control over Kosovo? Huh. Maybe that Albanian ‘majority’ wasn’t statistically big enough to justify an independent Kosovo (and secure a now ostensibly ‘independent’ Kosovo a ‘right’ to host Camp Bondsteel.)

Now, in these tangled pressures of arbitrary jurisdictions imposed on Serbia by the EU, NATO and the American military occupation of Serbia’s southern-most province of Kosovo (Camp Bondsteel), it should do to breakdown the logistics of the Western democracies dishonest game.

“Camp Bondsteel is the main base of the United States Army under KFOR command in Kosovo. Located near Ferizaj in the eastern part of Kosovo, the base serves as the NATO headquarters for KFOR’s Multinational Battle Group East”

The order is interesting, as well, the nomenclature. The American army figures first (“main base of the United States Army”) ‘under’ (watch how this deceit plays out) KFOR command … serves as NATO’s headquarters for KFOR’s Multinational Battlegroup …” or in the deciphered military ‘Orwellian-speak’ the American dominated NATO (every NATO “Supreme Allied Commander Europe” has been an American general throughout NATO’s history) keeps a “Battle Group” in Kosovo. This language is entirely inconsistent with ‘peace keeping.’ It is worth noting here, it had been when this occupying force had been 50,000 strong and deployed across Kosovo, Kosovo’s ethnic Albanians were ‘somehow’ allowed to push 250,000 Serbian civilians out of Kosovo in a pogrom that can only be defined as ethnic cleansing in violation of international human rights conventions.

In short other words, the KFOR mission established to bring an end to the fighting, between the Serbian army and the Kosovo Liberation Army, after the Serb army was withdrawn, KFOR clearly took the side of the Kosovo Liberation Army and ‘stood guard’ as the KLA (an insurgent army) was allowed to push 250,000 Serb residents out of homes in their own country, an event the Serb army had prevented prior to NATO establishing control.

Now, the preceding evolving into a NATO ‘authority’ had been extrapolated from UN Resolution 1244 which language is quite inconsistent with the historical reality…

“to resolve the grave humanitarian situation in Kosovo, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and to provide for the safe and free return of all refugees and displaced persons to their homes”

… while noting Kosovo is entered into the UN record as territory belonging to Serbia (Yugoslavia being a union of Serbia & Montenegro at this time.)

In short, on the pretext of ‘humanitarian intervention’ via a UN Resolution that NATO had never intended to honor (‘the proof is in the pudding’), an illegal insurgency had been morphed, via geopolitical chicanery, into a rouge ‘state’ governed by KLA war criminals secured by NATO.

“Transcendent Corruption” is the value I have assigned to the parties embracing ‘color of law’ (a veneer of legality masking corruption) wherein law is made to serve the interests of autocrats (e.g. Merkel), plutocrats (e.g. the Clinton & Biden families), & oligarchies (e.g. the European Union) and when taken together amount to rule by the most powerful corporate board personalities (the puppeteers) in the 21st Century model of feudalism manifesting as fascism but is labelled democracy to assuage the peasants (the citizens) sensibilities.

All of this follows on historical facts overlooked by the Western propaganda machine; Eastern Orthodoxy’s majority Serbian population in the region of Srpska Krajina recently (90s Balkan Wars) had been ethnically cleansed from Catholic Croatia by “Operation Storm” (never mind the Serbs have been made the boogeyman for everything that went wrong with the breakup of Yugoslavia), as well the fact unnatural ethnic borders have been enforced in relation to Republik Srpska, ensuring there will be ongoing tensions within Bosnia on the border of Serbia and not least, the remnant Serb majority region in the North of Kosovo is denied their right of self determination to join with Serbia, ensuring perpetual inter-ethnic conflict that serves only to weaken the institutions of state via ongoing radicalization of both populations, Orthodox Christian Serb and Muslim Albanian. And then, we have Metohija or the bona fide historical spiritual center of the Serbian people of the past 1,000 years.

It must be noted that, similar to the Sioux Indians had founded their culture upon a spiritual relationship to the Black Hills of South Dakota from which they had been expelled, Serbia’s relationship to “Old Serbia” (Kosovo) is little different; imperial ambition had seen the Serbs ethnically cleansed by the Albanians on multiple occasions, first under the ‘patronage’ of the Ottoman Turks favoring the Islamic population, then a minority, and after, the Albanians were backed in further pursuing pogroms against Serbs of Kosovo by the fascist Axis powers of World War II (similar to Croatian Ustasha persecution of Serbs during the war) pushing more of the Serb population out, wherein a coup de grace of sorts was delivered by communism under Tito, who forbade ethnic Serbs to return to their homes in Kosovo following 1945. This is a legacy NATO has furthered as ‘enforcers’ of wresting away Kosovo from Serbia. Kosovo is the original “Old Serbia” that continues to hold the center of Serbian cultural identity via the (ongoing) monastic tradition of Orthodoxy in the region of Metohija.

Then, steps into this mess the last people (if they had any sense of shame at all) who should mediate the current tensions, the Germans, Angela Merkel, particularly, and more recently, Ursula von der Leyen, whose family pedigree is a who’s who of empire personalities that cannot help perception in a Serbia whose memories of the NAZI occupation are still sharp.

‘Mediating’ the current controversy where Kosovo’s criminal administration (under the ‘protection’ of NATO) is allowing radical Wahhabism to proselytize the ethnic Albanian population away from the more moderate mainstream of Islam in the cradle of the Orthodox Serb civilization, Europe demanding Serbia recognize and do business with a cabal of criminals couldn’t do a better job of promoting a war of civilizations if it had actually tried; if one were to presume it is mere incompetence derived from ego-narcissism has birthed this circumstance into the present. But maybe it is more than that, a weakened Serbia with artificial borders is ‘low hanging fruit’ with possibility of consolidating control over a region culturally tied to Russia, as well, historically coveted by the Catholic headquarters at Rome.

In the many geopolitical machinations employed by Merkel, von der Leyen, Trump (and now Biden), not to mention the ‘rolling over’ to sound of a dog-whistle by Serbian sell-outs Vucic & Brnabic, there is a canine turd on the table no one dares mention: the Western Christianity’s animus towards Eastern Orthodoxy, particularly Slav Orthodoxy. The smell is in the air.

“… keeping in mind the fact that Bishop Grigorije has a very strong influence among the bishops, the regime has decided to do everything possible to reduce the chances that a man opposed to the government would be elected the new patriarch.

“That is why the confrontation with Grigorije, who has repeatedly said what he thinks about the “golden age of Serbia”, is becoming more and more acute and dangerous. Although the reason for this is his interview given almost a month ago, the fact remains that Grigorije is a threat the regime’s plans on two fronts which is more than enough reason to present this priest from Herzegovina as Serbia’s greatest enemy and a man who “divides the believers”.

“The matrix is always the same – the opponent is first dragged through the mud by the media, with the media, which broadcast on national frequencies, usually discovering “unknown facts”, i.e. false information, about him and his life.

“If this is not enough, they move on to the recording of videos in which “brave”, albeit unknown reporters, question the human characteristics of the victim of persecution, which is also an open invitation to lynch. Those who do not understand this, just think back of how Oliver Ivanović died”

Finally, something a little closer the real reasons behind the invitation to make the assassination manifest:

“… the instigators of the smear campaign against the bishop decided to take advantage of the fact that he does not share the vision of “progressive” Serbia and the Church and thus mark him as a traitor, while creating the impression that it would be a patriotic act to remove [assassinate] such a person” [1]

The lie of the Serbian state (Vucic oligarchy) concerning Bishop Gregorije being in opposition to the church is egregious; the Church position has always been Metohija is, and always will be, Serbia. Insofar as ‘progressive’, the ‘progress’ of the (German controlled) European Union has been little short of demanding an European monoculture derive from the social tensions born of multiculturalism. It is unnatural process, devoid of community spirit, temporally corrupt in the extreme and founded upon geopolitical propaganda lies, as has been the entire business of an independent Kosovo. Post 1945, the Reich is realizing its vision ‘over the long game.’ Recalling Rome’s embrace of Sainthood for the Catholic (Nazi collaborator) Alojzije Stepinac, it is perfectly clarified Slav Orthodoxy has no place in this ‘vision.’

If there were the slightest intention to preserve the integrity of Serb Orthodoxy in the machinations of Western Europe in the Balkans, Vucic would propose, Brnabic would initiate and the European Union would endorse an exclave of Serbian territory in that remaining portion of Metohija that is majority Serb populated. It would have more population than some United Nations states and there is precedence in Azerbaijan’s exclave Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic. But, no, this is not on the table, it is intended Slav Orthodoxy will be strangled and made extinct (replaced with ‘Eastern Rite’ Catholicism) in the Balkans.

Populism, and related nationalism, manifest in two forms, the healthy and the unhealthy, the benign and the malignant, the tranquil and the rage. The EU, NATO, and yes, the Church at Rome, all, have a hand in fostering the unhealthy, the malignant, and the rage. The epilogue of this would be the conversion of Serbia to “progressive” European monoculture at the point of a gun.

“There is not the smallest reason for confounding nationalism, which is the desire of a people to be itself, with imperialism, which is the desire of a people to prevent other peoples from being themselves” -Cicily Isabel Fairfield

[1] https://archive.li/DrMu2

A former Sergeant of Operations and Intelligence for Special Forces, Ronald Thomas West is a retired investigator (living in exile) whose work focus had been anti-corruption. Ronald had lived over thirty years in close association with Blackfeet Indians (those who still speak their language), and is published in international law as a layman: The Right of Self- Determination of Peoples and It’s Application to Indigenous People in The USA or The Mueller-Wilson Report, co-authored with Dr Mark D Cole. Ronald has been adjunct professor of American Constitutional Law at Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany (for English credit, summer semester 2008.) Ronald’s formal educational background (no degree) is social psychology. His therapeutic device is satire.

Contact: penucquemspeaks@googlemail.com

“Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with the good” -Mahatma Ghandi

February 10, 2021 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

US poised for Russia sanctions as Washington claims ‘millions’ support jailed Navalny, hope for regime change

RT | February 9, 2021

America’s top diplomat says the US is mulling how to best penalize Russia over the alleged poisoning of opposition figure Alexey Navalny, but he simultaneously claims Washington is not seeking to influence the situation.

Speaking to CNN on Monday, Secretary of State Antony Blinken told viewers “it seems apparent that a chemical weapon was used to try to kill Mr Navalny.”

“That violates the chemical weapons convention and other obligations that Russia has,” he said. “We’re looking at the situation very carefully and when we have the results we’ll look at that in the appropriate way.”

Blinken added that “the fact that Russia feels compelled – that Mr Putin feels compelled – to try to silence one voice, speaks volumes about how important that voice is and how it is representative of so many millions of Russians who want to be heard and who are fed up with the corruption and the kleptocracy.”

Thousands took to the streets of cities across the country to demonstrate for the release of the jailed anti-corruption campaigner over the past fortnight. However, further rallies that had been expected were called off amid lower numbers and an insistence from organizers that the movement should “end on a high note.” Unexpectedly, on Tuesday, Navalny associate Leonid Volkov, who is based in Lithuania, announced a new form of protest for the coming days, asking people to shine flashlights in their neighborhood gardens.

Research published last week found that only one in 20 of 1,600 Russians surveyed came up with Navalny’s name as a political figure that they trust. The fieldwork was conducted by the Levada Center, which is registered as a ‘foreign agent’ by the Ministry of Justice over links to funding from abroad.

While former President Donald Trump was said to have been ambivalent about international blocs like NATO and organizations like the UN, analysts have said that Biden’s team is far more preoccupied with seeing the US play a leading role in them. Blinken appeared to confirm that view, claiming that “the world doesn’t organize itself. If we’re not in there every day helping to do some of that organizing – to write the rules and shape the norms that sort of govern the ways that countries relate to each other, then either someone else is going to do it in our place or maybe, just as bad, nobody does it and then you have chaos.”

However, while he expressed hope that the momentum from previous protests would have a profound effect on the country, Blinken denied that the US was stoking tensions. “I think the Russian government would make a mistake in attributing to outside actors, whether it is the United States, European partners or others, responsibility for what is happening,” he said. “This is fundamentally about Russia, about Russia’s future and hopefully about a more democratic system going forward.”

Navalny was educated in the US and was appointed to Yale University’s World Fellow’s program, set up to “create a global network of emerging leaders.” This has led some in the country to suggest that he is more closely aligned to Western governments than many other domestic opposition figures.

Moscow has expressed cynicism over the nature of the US’ interest in the Navalny case. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said last week that Washington didn’t need a genuine reason for sanctions. “They will always find one or make one up,” she said.

February 9, 2021 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Lithuania is training the Ukrainian military despite its own inexperience

By Paul Antonopoulos | February 3, 2021

Lithuanian military instructors trained the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UBS) last month as a group of specialists from the National Defense Volunteer Force, the Training Doctrine Headquarters, the GKS Air Base and the Engineering Battalion went to Ukraine. The Lithuanian Ministry of Defense is attempting to bring the Ukrainian army closer to NATO standards by helping the reformation of military education and fund the training of Ukrainian officers at the Baltic Defense College. Decisionmakers in the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius think they can assist Ukraine in joining NATO.

NATO granted Ukraine enhanced partnership status in June 2020 and the UBS switched to NATO’s military rank system in January this year. This increased Ukraine’s access to Alliance programs and military maneuvers. The Ukrainian Defense Ministry set a goal – to bring the Ukrainian military into compliance with NATO requirements. Ukrainian soldiers even began to learn English. This Lithuanian leadership over Ukraine is strange considering the vast differences between their military capabilities.

In the Global Firepower military ranking for 2021, Ukraine ranks 25th in the world despite supposedly having outdated standards. Lithuania is ranked 85th. For 2021, Kiev will spend $9.6 billion dollars on its military and Lithuania only $880 million. The UBS has 255,000 soldiers in their ranks, and Lithuania has only 20,565. Ukrainian warplanes and tanks are incomparable to Lithuania’s fleet. In addition, Ukraine has a defense industry, something the Baltic country does not. This huge difference in ranking and data brings to question why Lithuania is “teaching” Ukraine about military matters.

If specific quantitative indicators are ignored and some abstract NATO standards are prioritized, the Alliance’s operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and elsewhere are considered catastrophic failures as they did not achieve any peace or stability after the Alliance’s regime change operations. Lithuania’s planned participation in NATO’s 2021 international operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Bahrain, Central African Republic, Mali and Kosovo is very modest with only 170 soldiers – this hardly constitutes as major wartime experience. In fact, Ukraine has more military experience than Lithuania when we consider the conflict in Donbass.

Lithuania will help Ukraine adapt to NATO standards, but despite Kiev’s loud statements about full membership by 2030, it is unlikely to be achieved. Replacing weapons and training hundreds of thousands of soldiers to NATO standards is a very complex, expensive and time-consuming process. As an example, Poland, which has been in the Alliance for 20 years, has not yet been able to completely get rid of its Soviet-era weaponry.

The problem of technological disadvantage also applies to the Lithuanian Armed Forces. Lithuania’s military-political ambitions, its desire to become NATO’s main center in the Baltic region against Russia, and becoming the main trainer of the UBS goes beyond their actual capabilities. Lithuania’s military spending exceeds 2% of GDP per year and is one of the very few countries to actually meet this criterion. However, the entirety of Lithuania’s GDP is only $54.63 billion, tiny compared to Ukraine’s $154 billion or Russia’s $1.7 trillion. Lithuania plans to increase its military spending to 2.5% of GDP. Although Lithuania is extremely ambitious, the reality is that NATO only views the Baltic country as a bridgehead against Kaliningrad in a potential war against Russia.

The indefinite stay of foreign military forces in Lithuania has been ongoing since 2017. Lithuania has the largest number of NATO military facilities in the region and the significant foreign presence demonstrates the powerlessness of their military despite their constant provocations against Russia and even Belarus. Lithuania has no tanks and most of their armored personnel carriers and military transport helicopters are Soviet remnants. In addition, Lithuania’s Naval Forces were formed by purchasing scrapped British trawlers and patrol cutters without missile armaments, something that is hardly up to NATO standards.

Lithuania joined NATO in 2004, long before Crimea reunited with Russia, and the militarization and utilization of the Baltic country’s sovereignty began immediately after they joined the Alliance.

An example of Lithuania’s military weakness is the 2006 agreement with Denmark, in which their only brigade at the time, the so-called Iron Wolf, was part of a Danish division and hence subordinated to foreigners. The brigade was eventually relocated to a German division, but the Danish division received a new Lithuanian brigade. Apparently, Lithuania’s military, which depends on the decisions of foreign commanders, is now capable of training and instructing the Ukrainian military.

The reality is that the strategic security of the Baltics is determined not by NATO forces in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, but by good neighborly relations with Russia that has expressed endlessly that it has no interest in a military conflict. Vilnius however refuses to take this into account while it increases its military budget and facilitates Ukraine’s attempt to join NATO.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

February 3, 2021 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Taliban Warns of ‘Consequences’ Amid Reports That Biden Has Scrapped Trump Pledge on Afghan Pullout

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 31.01.2021

The Trump administration reached a peace deal with the Taliban last February, with the agreement envisioning a complete pullout of foreign troops from Afghanistan by May 2021, intra-Afghan peace talks, and a pledge by the militant group not to allow the country to become a haven for terrorists.

The Biden administration has nixed its predecessor’s commitment to pull all NATO forces out of Afghanistan by May, Reuters has reported, citing four senior NATO officials speaking on condition of anonymity.

“There will be no full withdrawal by allies by April-end,” one of the officials said.

In mid-January, the Pentagon confirmed that it had met Trump’s order to shave US troop numbers in Afghanistan down to 2,500 troops total. The draw-down came despite efforts by Congress to freeze the withdrawal until a report ‘assessing the impact’ of such a pullout was completed. Trump fired Defence Secretary Mark Esper several days after the November election, replacing him with Christopher Miller over disagreements on plans to withdraw US forces from the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“Conditions have not been met,” Reuters’ source said. “And with the new US administration, there will be tweaks in the policy, the sense of hasty withdrawal which was prevalent will be addressed and we could see a much more calculated exit strategy.”

The US and its NATO allies have been in Afghanistan for nearly 20 years. After invading the Central Asian nation in late 2001 to topple the Taliban regime for its harbouring of Saudi al-Qaeda terror leader Osama bin Laden, NATO spent years hunting the man in the war-torn country. In 2011, he was discovered living comfortably in a secure compound in a wealthy neighbourhood in Abbottabad in neighbouring Pakistan, and was killed in a SEAL Team Six raid. Photos or other material evidence of his death were never released.

Reuters’ NATO sources said the issue of Afghanistan will likely be a key topic for discussion at an alliance meeting next month.

NATO estimates that about 10,000 foreign troops remain stationed in Afghanistan, with the troop numbers expected to remain unchanged until after May despite commitments outlined by Trump before he left office.

A State Department spokesman insisted that Biden remains committed to bringing a “responsible end to the ‘forever wars'”, but was also adamant about “protecting Americans from terrorist and other threats”.

Taliban Feels Betrayed, Warns of ‘Consequences’

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told the news agency that the militant group remains committed to the peace deal signed in Doha last February, and doesn’t want to hear any more “excuses” from NATO.

“No doubt if the Doha deal is not implemented there will be consequences, and the blame will be upon that side which does not honour the deal,” he said. “Our expectations are also that NATO will think to end this war and avoid more excuses for prolonging the war in Afghanistan,” Mujahid said.

The war in Afghanistan has cost the US over $2 trillion, and the lives of more than 2,350 military personnel. Hundreds of NATO coalition troops, over 62,000 Afghan security personnel and tens of thousands of Afghan civilians have also been killed in the war.

The NATO war in Afghanistan is just part of the war-torn country’s generations-long conflict, which began in 1978 after a pro-Soviet government took power in Kabul, prompting a CIA intervention and the funnelling of billions of dollars in military and financial assistance to the Mujahideen – precursors of the Taliban. Moscow was sucked into intervening in the conflict in late 1979 in an attempt to save the Kabul government, sparking the decade-long Soviet-Afghan War, which ended in 1989 with the complete pullout of Soviet forces. In 1992, the Afghan government collapsed, and for much of the 1990s, the Taliban and other militias divided up the country, turning it into a feudal failed state.

January 31, 2021 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »